Hi Jagan,
sorry, I see patch is already V3, I have missed the previous ones. Anyway:
On 26/03/2018 14:16, Jagan Teki wrote:
ARCH_MX6 -> ARCH_IMX6 MX6 -> SOC_IMX6 MX6D -> SOC_IMX6D MX6DL -> SOC_IMX6DL MX6Q -> SOC_IMX6Q MX6S -> SOC_IMX6S
I do not understand which is the added value for this patchset, except that it could potentially break many boards. I can understand if there would be a name conflict with some other SOCs, but there is not.
Why should we soo in this way ?
MX6SL -> SOC_IMX6SL MX6Sx -> SOC_IMX6SX MX6SLL -> SOC_IMX6SLL MX6UL -> SOC_IMX6UL MX6UL_LITESOM -> SOC_IMX6UL_LITESOM MX6UL_OPOS6UL -> SOC_IMX6UL_OPOS6UL
Well, and this is completely wrong. LITESOM is a SOM, not a SOC. So to be honest, we should have the hierarchy SOC (MX6UL) ==> SOM (LITESOM). But we have already, because both MX6UL and MX6UL_LITESOM are defined.
IMHO this change would like to clean up, but it adds more confusion.
Best regards, Stefano Babic